Health Alert

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

User login

Earthquakes. A clarification.

During my career as a physicist, I have done research on muon-catalyzed fusion and metal-catalyzed fusion (both of which are examples of cold fusion and are published in the journal NATURE), on the dust generated on 9/11, on solar energy and non-conventional alternate energy; and on earthquakes. I have and will speak publicly on all of these research areas, except that I decline to say much at all publicly on earthquake research. Recently I was asked why this is the case.

When confronted with an interesting claim, I generally ask – What is the physical evidence and what experiments have been done? And -- Has the claim reached the level of a peer-reviewed publication? Not that such a publication is a necessity prior to discussion, but if there is a refereed publication, I would start with that.

Now let me provide a recent example. In western Turkey in the past week, there has occurred a cluster of earthquakes that appear to be arranged in a distinct grid-pattern (see first attachment). Now, nature does not place earthquakes on a regularly-spaced grid like this, so several folks suggested to me that this might be “proof” of man-made earthquakes, perhaps testing of a quake-generating device (like HAARP, one suggested). Not so fast! Let's look at the data and not jump to conclusions, I said.

I went to the original site for the data, http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/index.php and looked at maps for other earthquakes in Turkey, going back as far as I could in the archival data at the EMSC site (Oct. 1, 2004) then plotting two-years of data to observe the clusters. In brief, I found that all the dense earthquake clusters in Turkey show the grid-pattern, along with quakes in Greece and Italy where there were dense clusters. (See attached.) You can go to this site and see the data that I observed; if you wish, do as I did and plot the data on satellite images of the earth using Google-Earth (see attached).

I spoke to a seismologist about apparent clusters, and he said that this can occur because the computer program which attempts to determine the location of quakes from the raw seismograph data, uses an algorithm that places quakes at certain N-S, E-W grid boxes. Ah! And he informed me that this has been the case for the quake near Reno, Nevada, in 2008 (for example).

So, after all this work, the puzzle is solved as we seek out available data and information – the grid pattern in Turkey last week has a prosaic explanation as due to computer processing.

It takes some time and effort, but digging into the actual data can often resolve questions like this. I have other secondary data and statements from people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and past Secretary of Defense William Cohen regarding the existence of earthquake-generating devices. That is worth pointing out, but it is not the same as doing hands-on experiments with state-of-the-art equipment as is the case with my 9/11 research and my fusion and alternative-energy work.

My general advice: look at the available hard physical evidence and what EXPERIMENTS have actually been done to back up a claim. Check whether there are any peer-reviewed publications (or patents in the case of inventions) that back up the claims. These straightforward steps will help one sort out the wheat from the chaff.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

I find Cohen's statement anything but a confirmation of the existence of earthquake weapons, rather, it seems to be a confused rant about chasing fruitlessly after far-fetched claims that needlessly consume agency resources. He compares the phenomenon to "phantom moles", and repeatedly uses the word "false" as in "false scare" and "false threat".

The proper thing to do would be to contact Cohen and ask for clarification. It has been said that HAARP could be used to 'scan' the earth's surface for the presence of valuable minerals or resources by causing it to 'resonate' with a certain frequency, the same way one would play a guitar string. [citation needed] That's a long way from inducing earthquakes with electromagnetic beams and certainly not the same thing. (BTW, Cohen speaks of 'others', not 'we') I can certainly imagine why the US would want to scan the earth for natural resources, so authorities know where to form allegiances, exert economic pressure or, in a cynical sense, plan for the next resource war.

As I stated, "In particular, I do NOT say that earthquakes in Japan or Haiti or Chile were initiated by man-made devices such as HAARP. "

A major reason why I do NOT think that HAARP could be used to generate deep-underground earthquakes is this: electromagnetic waves do not couple with the earth in such a way as to cause vigorous shaking -- if that is the claim, I would like to see experimental evidence for such a coupling (not mere speculation).

So it appears we are in agreement on this, Snowcrash. Although it would not hurt to contact Cohen as you suggest -- please do!

The idea was never serious to begin with, it is better to dismiss such a silly notion out of hand. No serious work has ever been done that begins to establish the theoretical possibility of such technology. You are saying curiosity justifies bringing this stuff to the front burner, but who is really curious about the ability to make man made earthquakes? Not me, and not any other rational person.

I'm explaining how I have approached this and related notions, and dismissed them.
I have explained why I do not think that earthquakes can be caused by HAARP -- that has consistently been my stance. Never varied from that.

What if someone says that the idea that WTC 7 came down by explosives is "silly"? unwilling to even look at the data?
To be consistent, I say we look at the data and hold fast to that which is scientifically valid, and reject that which is not, based on empirical data.

I completely agree. There are no cranky ideas, just cranky methods. And dismissing an idea out of hand is nothing but a clear cut example of a cranky method. It is precisely this pseudo-intellectualism which is so dangerous and is one of the main reasons for why so many people are not willing to look at the facts regarding 911. Unfortunately it is also the same reason for why it is necessary to be careful about who 911 truth associate itself with as guilt by association works wonders on pseudo-intellectual people. I trust that you are careful in this respect.

This pseudo-intellectualism, which is unfortunately widespread even in academia, is something which is the cause of major problems in today's world. Besides providing facts I think it is also necessary for 911 truth to actively promote this scientific mindset. When I talk to my friends and when controversial subjects come up I try to bring this up.

It seems we've gotten off on the wrong foot, Vulich. I don't think sparring this way (see especially posts below) is helpful to the 9/11 truth movement, and so I propose:

1. You tell me specifically what I said publicly about earthquakes (quoting me) that you find objectionable, and I will look at it and apologize where necessary. The reason I insist on quoting what I actually said, and not some paraphrase, is the tendency to misunderstand/misrepresent when there are paraphrases rather than direct quotes (of what I actually said). You have my blog above, and someone has a video below of some of my remarks. I've also posted more material regarding quakes below, which will provide you additional material to choose from. Just quote me in full, whatever you find objectionable and specifically why, and I will respond.

2. About my alternative energy research, I propose (again) that we see what empirical results arise in the next several months (until 31 Dec 2011), and meanwhile stop sparring about this because we will soon find out the answers via experiments.

For the sake of the 9/11 truth movement, I propose a truce until Dec 31, 2011 -- agreed?

I make the same olive-leaf offer to Snowcrash, and await responses from you two.

Actually, V, the information was given by you here on 911blogger, publicly. But sure, I have asked that the edit be made as you requested. I'm not able actually to edit my comment above, not sure why, so I asked the mods to make the requested edits.

I provided the information at your request in the past. But after reflection I decided that it was wrong of you to ask me that and so I removed that post. In any case, I disagree with you that this exchange and the comments below are bad for the movement. Quite the contrary I think this is the best possible thing for the movement, although maybe not for you personally. I don't want your apology because you have made your position clear and I think I have made my position clear as well. I would never limit my freedom to criticize you by entering into a morally binding truce.

"I would never limit my freedom to criticize you " That does seem to be your principle goal, Vulich, now clearly stated, and evidenced amply in your posts. Thus you reject my proposal for peace and reconciliation and state your intention clearly for all to see.

Since I, OTOH, do not think that such verbal sparring as you provide and personal or ad-hominem criticism is helpful to the truth effort, I intend no longer to respond to your comments.

My goals differ: truth, peace, justice, seeking a new energy source. I will be active in other forums in pursuit of these goals.

You just don't like my criticisms, so you want to silence me. Get ready for more because if you go through with this conspiracy con event I have a feeling you are going to be hearing from a lot of people.

Firstly, several of us have outlined in great detail these past weeks/months what objections we have to these two undertakings (man-made earthquakes, overunity). To ask us what objections we have as if this hasn't already been pointed out is rather unnecessary.

Secondly, what you offer is not a reconciliation, but a contract of silence. I've made the mistake of agreeing to something similar with Craig Ranke of CIT, and I will never make that mistake again. It's a Faustian bargain.

That said, you may (or may not) know me from the past as one of your staunchest supporters, the person who exposed Marie-Paule Pileni, so you shouldn't misconstrue any of my criticisms as an attempt to destroy you, but rather to protect a greater goal: 9/11 Truth. However, it remains to be seen who is most dedicated to truth, not just about 9/11, but about all things in general. Truth is hardly ever absolute, sometimes unattainable and slippery like an eel, but methods exist to approach it to within the smallest possible margin. I don't enjoy these exchanges, since I have staunchly defended your work since the beginning, and have only recently begun to speak out with now slowly fading reluctance. Remember me lambasting Mike Ruppert for denouncing your WTC dust research? You probably don't. None of this is relevant though; all of us must transcend reliance on single individuals and continuously reaffirm our dedication to a cause, not a man.

I'm willing to believe your intentions are good. I'm sorry your career has suffered as a result of your activities involving 9/11 research. I am an avid reader of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, the acronym of which was jokingly named after you. But I will continue to speak out as I have, voicing and following my conscience.

They used to do it with explosives, now they use big trucks that that literally vibrate the ground.

The questions now are:

Can large earthquakes be induced this way?

Have large earthquakes been induced this way?

I've have talked to the leading expert on the seismology of the L.A. basin and he is open to the idea that this could be taking place, but would like to see all the relevant data before rendering a judgement.

For those of us who live in highly active seismic areas this is not a "fringe" issue, btw.

Is your obsession with PR and msm credibility so strong that everything else gets tossed out the window, Vulich?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free, and this means the truth about everything.

Love is the only way forward, and love means having an open mind and heart.

One can organize an event where 10,000 people jump up and down. You'll 'induce an earthquake' too. We all know this is not the type of earthquake we're talking about.

What was proposed was a secret US government technology capable of remotely triggering catastrophic earthquakes. No evidence has been provided for this (ridiculous) assertion. Indeed, this whole blog post is a non-apology apology.

to support the claim that high magnitude or "catastrophic" earthquakes are being induced by governments, corporations or private individuals, I think it irrational to assume that such technologies can't and thus don't exist.

I'm not going to ask you to prove a negative, as we all know where that goes...or most of us, anyway (and I KNOW you do).

Thus, the burden of proof remains with those making the claim or pursuing the research.

I hope you don't doubt that it is theoretically possible to induce higher magnitude earthquakes in light of the fact that small earthquakes are regularly induced all the time.

I also think there is more than a little conflation going on here, but I will let the readers decide for themselves on that point.

[Now, as for people jumping up and down, I remember quite well how freaked out the engineers got when they say the Golden Gate Bridge flatten a bit when it was covered with tens of thousands of people during an anniversary celebration.]

Returning to the issue at hand, I think we should let this rest until there is something more concrete to examine, critique and discuss.

Please note that I am not saying that higher magnitude earthquakes are being induced this way, only that it is theoretically possible and it is worth investigating the possibility that this is, in fact, taking place.

Additionally, since I live in northern California where planes are spraying something almost every day, and considering the fact that some scientists have stated their desire to geo-engineer the climate, and considering the extreme weather some parts of north America continue to experience, I think this is an area deserving of further investigation, as well.

Now I fully understand and supported the obvious public relations reasons for separating these various issues from the issue of 9/11 truth, but I think the movement is now broad and deep enough to allow some members the latitude to pursue these issues publicly through the support of responsible research and public education around these issues.

You have every right to disagree, but I think your disagreement would carry more weight if it was constructively critical and not just a pithy ad hominem attack.

The truth shall set us free, but courage is required to look for and face the truth.

Love is the only way forward, and love means accepting the fact that we can never know everything completely on this planet.

"Another one that you might never have thought of, that I will be addressing this next little while, is Haiti. Now Haiti you wouldn't think of as a generated crisis. But the goa.... Did you know that tremendous oil reserves have been found in the bay, in that area right around Port-au-Prince. Tremendous oil reserves reported in 2008 to be larger than the oil reserves of Venezuela, which is one of the largest oil producers in the world. So, again is this a 'natural' or 'real' crisis or is it one of the... Biden's generated crises, you see? That's what I will be talking about the next hour. I don't have an answer for sure on that yet."

Haiti a generated crisis? How? This is all conveniently non-committal, so I guess after the fact, you could claim you never meant to imply the Haiti quake was deliberately induced. But that was how it was received:

Haiti? A false flag? What kind of crazy person would think that?! A drill goes live and a bunch of mass murdering war criminals and celebrity whores beg the public to donate money to support the militarization of an oil rich island. Nothing suspicious there! I haven't seen such a sickening display of vampiric exploitation since Michael Jackson's funeral. And if they could blow up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001, the idea of them being able to create earthquakes in 2010 isn't much of a stretch. Hell, there's a publicly available US Air Force document that seriously discusses the prospect of teleportation! This is what's out in the open. Imagine the black projects going on in the ultra secret underground laboratories!

At Conspiracy Con, you were initially going to speak about this topic, but after pressure, you've changed your mind. Nevertheless, when one looks at the roster, this is what one sees:

Douglas Dietrich will candidly discuss his transition from adolescence to professionalism while primarily being recognized for running the ovens of San Francisco's Presidio – site of the establishment of the United Nations (over desecrated Tribal Burial Grounds) and controversial experimentation on both man and beast within Presidio's Letterman Army Medical Center until Base-closure in 1994.

Douglas' career as a Military Reference Technician responsible for document destruction forced him to confront the impact of occult warfare on U.S. military mentation via paranormal operations and ESP-ionage – strategy provoking initiatives such as utilizing Tesla-derived "Montauk" technology (i.e., HAARP) to contain and control Dævil(s) summoned in wake of American Genocide(s).

(...)

Hilder and his long-time friend & associate, Ted L. Gunderson, former chief agent in charge of the FBI in L.A., Dallas & Memphis, have launched a Global Expose of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), use of the CIA and their Agents Provocateurs to reduce the population of the planet by 90%. The Gunderson/Hilder team through AirCrap.org are exposing Evergreen and other CIA Apparatchiks involved in the Aerosol attack upon all mankind and every living thing on the Planet Earth. The convention will hear their Expose of HAARP, which is the latest & largest weapon of mass destruction since the creation of the Hydrogen Bomb. Expect this presentation to be both explosive and alarming. If you don't want to hear the truth, this one's not for you.

Evidence from Gakona, Alaska and Japan provides the evidence that HAARP was used to trigger the Fukushima earthquake, followed by computer sabotage of the emergency cooling systems by the Stuxnet virus.

Does this require further comment? Then there's you:

Dr. Steven Jones

Among many other academic and scientific achievements in energy study and research, Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics (ret.), has a B.S. in Physics and a Mathematics Minor from Brigham Young University, along with a Ph.D. in Physics and Mathematics/Electronics Minors from Vanderbilt University. His academic career culminated with an Associate Directorship for Fusion Studies and full Professorship at Brigham Young University, and he has published papers in Scientific American, Nature and Physical Review Letters. His peer-reviewed papers on the destruction of three World Trade Center skyscrapers (when only two were hit by airplanes) are being widely read and have been translated into several languages. More recently, his ongoing research focuses on clean energy devices.

Since you're going to be speaking at a conference where "HAARP induced natural disasters" is a common theme, are you going to tell the participants they're wrong? That said, the misrepresentation of a joule thief circuit as an "overunity" device which provides "hope for mankind" isn't much better. In fact, I think it's even worse.

Obviously though, your critics are at fault and not you. Time is on my side; the overunity claim will be proven false, and no recent catastrophic earthquakes were man-made false flags.. But... obviously there are no winners in this shameful debacle, just hopes dashed and escalating irrationality, eventually causing an exodus from a good cause. This 9/11 cause.

One thing I like about the OU-research community, compared to some here, is that they are by and large:

1. Respectful, refraining from ad hominems and misrepresentations
2. Scientific in their approach
3. Supportive of innovative research
4. Seeking to benefit humanity

Further, there is a big plus with overunity research -- when the device is powering homes, should we reach that goal, then the debunkers like Snowcrash will not be able to use hubris and mocking anymore.

Why not just build a battery or an electric generator then? Why go on a quixotic quest for harnessing the earth's magnetic energy? If an overunity device is just more power out than in than why not just use batteries and electric generators to achieve the desired affect? I don't hear you talking about developing existing alternatives like solar and wind, why not focus on that?

It's not "bait". You said my comment showed that I was missing the point, so I asked what point am I missing? I'm not sure how telling me to pick up a physics book answers my question. Nothing I said demonstrates a lack of understanding of physics.

It's also pretty funny that you say I'm trying to bait you into a discussion when you are the dude that butted into my back and forth with your childish comment. Doesn't that mean that you are baiting me?

Basic physics books would remind you that "overunity" is impossible, because it violates the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

Semantics lock in the meaning of the term "overunity", so an attempt to redefine this term as "harnessing a previously unknown form of energy" to avoid violating the physical laws as explained above, is subterfuge.

So, either prof. Jones has not achieved overunity and has not harnessed a previously unknown energy source, or he has harnessed a previously unknown energy source and not achieved overunity.

One does not get to redefine the meaning of the word "overunity" to avoid criticism, just like one does not get to redefine the meaning of the word "torture" to avoid prosecution.

Save the logical conundrum above, which already establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that prof. Jones cannot prove his claim, the notion that a joule thief (voltage booster) circuit could harness this mythical new form of energy is extremely far-fetched. BTW, the folks in the "overunity" thread who are discussing this matter with prof. Jones frequently refer to his circuit as a "joule thief" circuit as well, and that's because it is one.

a possible source of anomalous energy that we know very little about (except for its existence):

"What Is Dark Energy?

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe. "...
"Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues. "

I am a highly intelligent person so I know quite a lot about science. Dark energy is thought to be the force accounting for the observed expansion of the universe. The thing that is more powerful than attractive forces like gravity. This doesn't begin to justify overunity research, which posits a reliable mechanism for getting more energy output than input. Furthermore this is a false analogy, nobody claims that dark energy can be exploited for human energy consumption purposes.

You wrote: "Dark energy is thought to be the force"
This is where you need that physics text.

The point I'm making is that there is a LOT of energy out there whose properties and interactions with "normal matter" are just not known. --Thus undercutting your argument that "overunity is physically impossible" which you stated without proof.

Many things are possible with 70% of the universe a form of ENERGY with unknown properties.

Touche! Force instead of energy, you got me there. So precise with your language you think you'd stop using the term overunity to describe a conventional energy delivery system like an electric generator.

A cursory review of the non-technical literature on the issue of dark energy finds common use of the term "force" as an interchangeable description. Once again you deflect criticism with a show of pseudo authority. I won't grant you that authority. You have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

And the "proof" you are looking for that overunity is impossible is contained in the laws of thermodynamics. Anybody reading this can find that out for themselves unless they are so impressed by your work that they won't even "look at the evidence".

when there is an outside source of energy. You know, you really need that physics text IF you do not understand this.

I'd like to see your sources where a PhD physicist uses the term "dark energy" and "dark force" interchangeably in the scientific literature... I doubt you can quote such a source.

But as fun as it is to respond to nonsense, Vulich, a philosophy student as you said before, I tire of it. You remind me a lot of another philosopher, actually, who just loves to spar verbally. Ad nauseum, no matter how much he embarrasses himself.

I have other things to do. Its as I said to Justin just this morning, sparring with debunkers is not my goal in life.

I also said that we should know about novel, non-coventional "new" energy by the end of the year. So I propose that we leave the ad nauseum debates, which really are of little value finally -- until the end of the year. If EXPERIMENTAL demonstrations are not in by then, I would be surprised.

We will see if there is a self-running new energy device, by DEC 31, 2011. That will pretty much settle the issue, experimentally.

Do you agree to this? Let's get back to work, leave off the banter, until the end of the year.

If there is an outside source of energy then why do we need that outside source to be the earth's magnetic field? Couldn't solar energy work just as well? If you don't want to be debunked then you should work on solid and credible issues. Alternative energy is a real field, building an "overunity" machine that harnesses the magnetic force of the earth is not. If you want to avoid confusion you should drop the term overunity and tell people you are working on building a machine that runs off of the earth's magnetic field. It isn't putting out more energy than it is taking in because it is taking in energy from a different source, no different as you say, from an electric generator. So why not say you are working on a power generator instead of an overunity device. You invite the confusion, if there is one, but really I think the usage is intentionally loaded.

None of what I have said is nonsense nor have I embarrassed myself. Let's remember how this started, this isn't a referendum on me, it's all about you. YOU are the one that is doing this research and smearing the 911 truth movement. YOU are the one that is appearing at the conspiracy con event. YOU are the one who has made irresponsible statements, and somehow you are attempting to turn your critics into targets. You are the one who has to justify why you are doing this, not me. I think it is simply funny that a person pushing overunity and man made Haitian earthquakes is saying that I am embarrassing myself. You obviously have no shame. Seems like you don't understand that major criticisms are due to you.

I was recently talking with a good friend who brought up his idea for a more-out-than-in/perpetual motion+ device. I'm going to refer him to this thread so he can see the multiple viewpoints communicated here.

Just wondering if you've made progress. Have you been able to run the experiments you were planning?

From E-mc^2 we know we are surrounded by enormous amounts of energy. But it is useless as we cannot use that for motors. Unless we could create a small black hole and feed the matter into it and get out (Hawking) radiation which could be used to heat water etc..

Either you've tapped into a previously unknown form of energy using a joule thief circuit, and not achieved overunity, or you've achieved "overunity" and violated the laws of physics. Since I elect to stick with the laws of physics, it should be the former, and I would caution you to stop using the term "overunity" to refer to your work. In that sense, you've already failed. However, I don't believe a joule thief circuit is an overunity device anyway. I see you've attempted to self-power the circuit and failed. You cite leaky capacitors as the cause, but even if you were to get around that, it will never work.

expansion of the universe is also in complete agreement with Einstein's field equations with a small but positive cosmological constant \Lambda. It is perhaps a boring answer but we do not have a good alternative where it would be some kind of substance. The following is quite amusing. Since the cosmological constant enter in exactly the same manner as the infinite vacuum energy of quantum field theory, it was naturally speculated that the cosmological constant was indeed nothing but the regularized infinite vacuum energy. Notoriously this led to the "worst prediction in the history of science" with the predicted value of \Lambda 120 order of magnitude off the observed value!

What does any of this have to do with 9/11? The most obvious connection that I see is that it reinforces the argument put forth by Jonathan Kay and others that "we" are preoccupied with a host fringe conspiracy theories. I am not dismissing any of it out of hand, for I am not qualified to do so, but I am categorically saying it doesn't belong on this website.

What if someone says that the idea that WTC 7 came down by explosives is "silly"? unwilling to even look at the data?
To be consistent, I say we look at the data and hold fast to that which is scientifically valid, and reject that which is not, based on empirical data.

And I provide a concrete example of this. The same approach that I describe above could be (and has been, IMHO) applied to the notions that no planes hit the Towers and that "energy beams" from space knocked the Towers down.

And since I have been personally (ad hominem) attacked for studying things other than 9/11, I felt it important to explain why I do this. My most important example of other research is in the field of alternative energy, as explained in a separate blog where connections to 9/11 have been explored already.

You are conflating the plausibility of the claim WTC7 was a controlled demolition with the plausibility of the notion that earth quakes can be engineered. This is a connection that I am sure our detractors would love to make. In my view the proper discernment can see that prima facie WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, if someone said it is silly to look at the evidence for that I would say they are being intellectually dishonest. This is not the same as with the issue of man made earthquakes. Not all claims are equally plausible.

This is considered by many (from personal experience) as prima facie evidence of man-made quakes, because nature does not put quakes in a grid. I explain how further data counters this mis-interpretation of the grid pattern.

Did you look at the data I attached?

It is much the same with WTC7. How many don't want to even look at the collapse of this building -- or have been denied access to seeing the video (as during my interview with MSNBC in 2006)? Or, when confronted with the video evidence, do not wish to listen any further, because the notion of explosives on 9/11 is "silly"?

The further data in the case of WTC 7 is, IMO, the free-fall acceleration curve associated with the demise of WTC 7, produced finally by NIST!

available, and doing experiments, applies to the notions that no planes hit the Towers and that "energy beams" from space knocked the Towers down., both espoused by Judy Wood. Yes, we could say these notions are "silly" -- that approach just won't work with many folks though. (What is "silly" about it? she has a book...) OR we could take a look at ALL relevant data, including the evidence for thermitic materials in the WTC dust (published!) and the effects of thermite-products on cars (etc.)

And there are scientists who have done this "further data" clarification with some patience, explaining the "further data" and experiments that counter Judy's notions -- published in the Journalof911Studies.com.

"What if someone says that the idea that WTC 7 came down by explosives is "silly"? unwilling to even look at the data?"

The overwhelming majority of people who dismiss our conclusions about WTC7 as "silly" are NOT looking at the data, that's pretty apparent. NIST isn't looking at all of the data and had to be called out by a high school physics teacher. I feel it would be far more useful to activists with little or no scientific background (that's me) to provide examples that are MORE palpable and easily understood than WTC7, rather than cite obscure fringe inquiries that have no mainstream exposure and are likewise subject to ridicule. We are engaged in a battle to disarm ridicule, not build on it -- make things easier to understand, not more complex.

I'm truly glad you are concerned about space beam, no planes theories, etc and how to deal with them. But all someone like me can do is categorically dismiss such theories and fall back on findings of the few scientists among us (that's you) to address these issues scientifically. All an individual activist can do with authority is relate their impressions, tell people who has researched what and explain to them who they trust and why.

Vullich and Snowcrash are right on in this regard and so are you peacenik. Prof. Jones is giving us tons of awful publicity right before the 10th anniversary. I'm simply shocked by his dodging of trying to give specific answers. This stuff makes us look like silly theorists spreading extremely offensive ideas. It is a PR nightmare. I don't care if you want to research whatever. But if you wanna talk about it and make it somehow related to 9/11 truth and be a supposed rep of the truth movement, you are ruining yours and our credibility. There is no question of that. The fact that folks on here still wanna pretend as though they 'just don't see it' is getting a little absurd. You just 'dont get' how these theories are gonna help ruin our cred to the mainstream? Do we have to just keep explaining it. Prof Jones, your behavior and public displays are getting out of hand, and I'm proud that many here are calling you out on it.

Thanks Vulich for speaking up. I'm watching in amazement as your and Snowcrash's eminently reasonable and factual posts are voted down. Also the attempt to vilify you guys for speaking truth to power is sickening and sad to watch, but I'm glad it's all out in the open and documented. Just chiming in so you know you're not alone.

not be as grumpy if I didn't know that simultaneously, we have the overunity discussion going on. Now that I know prof. Jones has essentially built a joule thief circuit (a voltage booster) and literally claims it's going to save humanity, my frustration levels are skyrocketing.

I know where the man-made earthquake stuff comes from: the belief that HAARP was an earthquake inducing project predates this. Just google haarp earthquakes and you'll get a million or two hits.

You're always diplomatic John, I know that. But this is getting really serious. I believe this movement is in crisis, and I (and others) hardly have any energy left to do anything about it. We are seen as the problem. We're discussing it @ TA, and we're all upset about it.

No, I actually don't believe remotely inducing catastrophic earthquakes is possible. I would have to see some very, very convincing evidence. Years of seeing people enticed to spend their time and effort on fruitless endeavors, things which do nothing do better our collective lives or right a wrong.... As the eloquent Bush Jr. aptly put it: "Fool me once....fool me... can't get fooled again"

Hardcore conspiracy theorists (as Russel Pickering put it) spend their days trying to right a non-existent wrong. I can't be involved in that. Real conspiracies are ongoing, and are devastating our lives. Besides 9/11, there's the Big Brother/police state conspiracy, and I see that as the most dangerous and disturbing phenomenon at this time, together with torture.

E.g., something like this, which essentially combines all three:

"And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, [ John McCain ] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information."

Former senator Santorum is considering a bid for the 2012 Presidential "elections".

As if promise-breaking, police state accelerating sell-out Barack Obama isn't bad enough. This is insanity. No, I'm not chasing after fictitious remote earthquake inducing theories, nor am I going to be "replicating" a voltage booster. No offense, but charitably, all of this is an insult to my intelligence and that of other well-meaning 9/11 researchers and activists, although I'm sure this will catch on in some quarters, where skeptical scrutiny and critical thought are in short supply, and where the big tent is seen as the safest place to be when the storm comes. I am not just appealing to adverse consequences, I know these claims are factually incorrect. I will say so, whether popular or not.

The first to challenge him was Tracy Molm, one of the targeted activists and a member of Students for a Democratic Society. [Eric] Holder talked with her after his speech, saying they would have to “agree to disagree” on whether international solidarity activism like hers is constitutionally protected.

Yes, Eric Holder, like his Republican counterpart Rick Santorum actually says these things. Holder actually has executive power. He should not have that power, he ought to be behind bars. What a dangerous, misguided, creepy, power abusing thug Holder is proving to be. I bet he, Hillary and Obama get along just fine. Of course, I don't see Holder and his sorry band of totalitarians going after the Westboro Baptist Church; they espouse extremely offensive views, but pose no threat to the MIC establishment.

What could be more important? Can we afford to be distracted by claims and research which are provably nonsensical? Will we be tolerant of such distractions because they are promoted by one of several persons seen to be relevant 9/11 Truth leaders?

Can you provide any substantiation that I " literally claims it's going to save humanity"? You cannot, for this is not what I have said. There is hope for a new energy, yes, based on data by myself and others and we HOPE that it will benefit humanity. That's what I said =- what's wrong with that?? NOTE the replication of my device already by Les Kraut.

Further, this is NOT a simple "Joule Thief circuit" although there are some superficial resemblances.

And in the future -- please quote me in full and avoid such nonsense, snowcrash. You have made a statement that is unfair and untrue.
Where will your nonsense and misrepresentations end?? As I look back at your recent "ad hominem" style misrepresentation/nonsense (on me), I must ask -- are you deliberately attempting to marginalize me, personally? I await your answer.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/ top-5-ways-that/
• Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake By Alexis Madrigal June 4, 2008
• “...It turns out, actually, that the human production of earthquakes is... downright commonplace: Klose estimates that 25 percent of Britain’s recorded seismic events were caused by people.”

New
York
Times,
June
24,
2009, excerpts:

“Deep in Bedrock, Clean Energy and Quake Fears By JAMES GLANZBASEL, Switzerland
Markus O. H舐ing, a former oilman, was a hero in this city of medieval cathedrals and intense environmental passion three years ago, all because he had drilled a hole three miles deep near the corner of Neuhaus Street and Shafer Lane.
He was prospecting for a vast source of clean, renewable energy...: the heat simmering within the earth’s bedrock. All seemed to be going well until Dec. 8, 2006, when the project set off an earthquake, shaking and damaging buildings and terrifying many...Hastily shut down, Mr. Haring’s project was soon forgotten by nearly everyone outside Switzerland. As early as this week, though, an American start-up company, AltaRock Energy, will begin using nearly the same method to drill deep into ground laced with fault lines in an area two hours drive north of San Francisco.
AltaRock maintains that it will steer clear of large faults and that it can operate safely.But in a report on seismic impact that AltaRock was required to file, the company failed to mention that the Basel program was shut down because of the earthquake it caused. AltaRock claimed it was uncertain that the project had caused the quake, even though Swiss government seismologists and officials on the Basel project agreed that it did. Nor did AltaRock mention the thousands of smaller earthquakes induced by the Basel project that continued for months after it shut down.

... Mr. Haring knew that by its very nature, the technique created earthquakes...
The high-pressure water can be thought of loosely as a lubricant that makes it easier for those forces to slide the earth along the weak points, creating a web or network of fractures....what surprised him that afternoon was the intensity of the quakes.
...“In the United States, ... the Basel earthquakes received little news coverage...”

But this cannot be done quickly or covertly, so it is not a useful method of triggering covert earthquakes.

It can result in major lawsuits, though, and has on more than one occasion.

We have two basic problems here...people who don't understand how basic research is done and activists who are so worried about credibility and public relations that they trample over an individual's right to pursue their own interests. [edited for emphasis]

Btw, my oldest brother is an EE and is going to look into the overunity device and may be interested in testing one, I'll let you know.

911 blogger is not a FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO PUSH THEIR PRIVATE RESEARCH INTERESTS! Is it? And this is questionable research that discredits us. Not everything that you have a right to do is something that you ought to do. He has a right to explore anything he wants including reptiles from outerspace or whatever is in vogue right now. What does that have to do with 911? If this is a forum for people to try and discuss issues of relevance to 911 truth and to educate the general public about our cause then this is inappropriate. Finally, do you have a problem with my reasoning skills? Why don't you make a real argument that I can respond to and then we'll see what's up with my reasoning skills.

Answer #1: not directly - but if my initial experiments prove to be correct - and my Radio Shack credit card holds up - i may actually be able to save humanity. think what credibility i will bring to 9/11 Truth then!

Question #2: Somehow I think you can find better uses for your time, yes?

Answer #2: what could be more important than revealing these slime balls LeftWright? i mean - reptilian people!!! in our midst!! posing like regular people!!! (wink wink) we gotta root them out and wack the shit outta them!!

Question #3: Are you also implying that you are as relevant to the 9/11 truth movement as Dr. Jones is at this particular moment in time?

who are highly placed, say that they often engage in sexual orgies concurrent with astrological phenomena. The blood of gentiles is often imbibed, so of course they are carnivores.

Whats really great is that we do have an A-list celebrity about to come out in support of this information, and I can tell you for a fact that it will shake Hollywood to its core!! We hope to get some DVDs together to help fund our efforts to get the truth out. It'll explain everything.

I've seen some of the data. John is really on to something here, and it would really be in the truth movements interests maybe not to push this info, but at least give everyone a heads up about this exciting new development!

"Love is the only way forward, and love means accepting the truth, no matter what it is."

You demonstrate clearly to me and others here that you are not at all savvy about movement strategy. You don't know what the truth is and so you have no way to accept it. This isn't a pleasant disagreement about opinion. You are ignorant and need to learn better. And frankly, I'm not going to press you to do some reading about social movements or find out more about movement history. If you respect truth and this movement, you would.

You ARE a promoter of the 'big tent.' Period. And that means that you damage the movement. You hurt 9/11 truth. That's truth that you don't appear likely to accept any time soon and I am now being vocal about the fact that you are a liability to this site.

"I hope that you and yours are well."

Don't ever say that plastic crap about me and my family or my issues with you will be personal as well. I don't buy your crunchy BS for a second and find it totally insulting.

That has to be the funniest thing I've heard since I started working with the so-called organized 9/11 truth movement.

What movement strategy?

Please enlighten us, oh learned Jules.

As for my sincere "crunchy BS" I will call your veiled FOAD and ask you to sit down and discuss it civilly the next time we are near each other.

As for tents, I have a small tube tent, which allows me to move about freely and talk to anyone I choose, especially those I disagree with, as that's the only way you can come to any kind of understanding.

I assure you that I will still be here when you are done burning the village down to save it. I'll be very easy to find as I will be one of the first ones starting to rebuild it.

I realized long ago that the day the msm takes this issue seriously and reports honestly is the day most of us can go back to what we were doing before we got involved in this.

I'm a realist as well as an idealist.

What we need to be doing, and are doing pretty well, is educate the public, AND none of these issues about Dr. Jones research impact that in ANY significant way, imo.

I freely admit I may be wrong about that, but you're going to have to provide concrete evidence, not just conjecture and supposition.

One of the strategies that has evolved organically within this movement is bypassing the msm and going direct to the public.

All this hand-wringing about credibility in this case reminds me of parents who worry what their neighbors will think if their child turns about to be gay BEFORE he has even been born.

FTR - I always make sure what I present and how I present it is credible when I deal with the public. That's what really matters.

Now, if you were to ask me if this adds fuel to the fire for our critics...of course it does.

If you were to ask me if I think Dr. Jones should have done this in a much less visible manner, the clear answer is yes.

But if you are asking me to condemn someone I have respect for and like because he chooses to do some research into some areas he finds interesting, the answer is no. Dr. Jones is working a bit out of his field with the induced earthquakes, but he's a smart guy and can get up to speed pretty fast and when (and if ) he has something ready to be reviewed by professionals in the field I will be very interested to see what they have to say (I've known earth scientists my whole life, so this is something I happen to be quite interested in).

What I see here are a few people who are so concerned with some mythical credibility (with who again?), that they lose sight of the big picture and are ready to throw anyone under a bus when they say or do something they don't agree with. This is not a road I want to go down (Pol Pot, anyone?).

FTR - My goal is to help spark a non-violent revolution in the U.S.A. and one of the tools I use is educating the public about the events of 9/11/01.

If you want kooky , you're welcome to come for a family dinner sometime, we get pretty goofy around the table.

"But if you are asking me to condemn someone I have respect for and like because he chooses to do some research into some areas he finds interesting, the answer is no."

Who said anything about condemning? Is that like threats? Do you always use extravagant terminology? I don't think Jones is any longer an effective representative of the movement. I hope he keeps doing his research and hope that helps.

What's clear to me is that you have a different threshold for credibility than others. And some difference of opinion around that is only natural. Not a big problem. What doesn't work is refuting direct experience. Do you have more direct experience with the inner workings of this movement than I? Have you read books about social movements? If so, then you are going to have to do a much better job defending your position as all I have to do is point at the TruthMove forum or a history book to back up my position. You got any reading for me?

"I freely admit I may be wrong about that, but you're going to have to provide concrete evidence, not just conjecture and supposition."

Then you have really said nothing. You are willing to be wrong, but direct experience won't be a factor? Do I have to provide my resume? I don't blame you for not assuming I know what I'm talking about just because I say so. But... those who agree with me are some of the most committed, experienced, and insightful people in the movement. Do they have to give you a resume too?

Siting history isn't dogma and so I think you are the one with the burden of proof here.

LeftWright said.."or is your strategy all about gaining credibility with the msm?" "That's even funnier."

That was not addressed to me-but frankly that is exactly my strategy. Why? Because.....

LeftWright said...."I realized long ago that the day the msm takes this issue seriously and reports honestly is the day most of us can go back to what we were doing before we got involved in this."

That's why. Yes, that is indeed my goal. And here is evidence of progress towards that goal....

That was a Fox News Special Titled ..."Secrets of 9-11"

But those "secrets" have been exposed for years by some of us including on this very site. That is called getting credibility. This report would never have aired during the Bush Administration because there is a cover up and it's very easy to expose. This report is just the tip of the iceberg.

I have never accused the MSM of being "in on it" nor "TV Fakery" BS. It is not the MSM putting forth incredible nonsense and BS it is a so called truth movement. Burning bridges with politicians and the MSM is not a very good tactic to say the least. Now some in this "truth movement" probably think this report aired by Fox is more MSM BS because it seems to indicate that planes were hijacked, well there is more to 9-11 than building 7. Planes flew into buildings. There is a bigger picture out there.

Wow. Didn't think you could so easily top yourself. My statement that I am lobbying to have you demoted is not a threat as the statement is it's own action. What I said is already lobbying.

I'd also point out that I find your use of the term threat and suggestion that I make threats to be totally inappropriate and far beyond acceptable behavior for comments on this site. Who among us does everything we hope to do? I'm quite sure I haven't delivered on every promise. But "threats" are something else and you should know that.

Your behavior here further confirms my concern about your moderation. Or perhaps you need a break. Maybe you are burnt out just like anyone who really cares about this can be. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your position and get back to me, or rather us.

I don't 'believe' this stuff. I've learned how it works. Good strategy is not opinion but historical fact. The history of social movements and the history of this movement. Some things don't work and I do not intend to accept you laughing at me because I know what does. That's a direct act of ignorance, and it has no place in a movement about truth.

People line up behind good ideas, and I think it's everybody's job to promote them and to point out bad ideas and bad research also. That's not the job of a small group of people, it's the job of everybody, but it is true that only a small group of people have been acting responsibly in all of this. I guess you think there is strength in numbers, well let me tell you, you are the one preaching orthodoxy to the choir. You and the people in defense of conspiracy stuff like what Jones is doing are the small group that is trying to impose an orthodoxy on all the good meaning activists who actually outnumber you but are not represented in large numbers on this website. I agree that we need the movement to grow, but don't you think you are alienating people with all of this junk science? Let me ask you something, how do you know that directed energy weapons didn't destroy the WTC? Because that idea is just as reasonable as the idea that we are going to save humanity with an overunity device, or find out the secret plans of the elite to engineer catastrophes. You are totally inconsistent on all of this and you should be able to recognize that if you are being honest with yourself. Is Jones saying something that sounds credible in a way that DEW does not? Don't we condemn DEW? Or is that just more of the friendly fences approach? Do I have to respect anti-semitism if that's what makes some people tick? Your remark that a small group is attempting to impose orthodoxy is combative, so let me tell you again you are wrong in your assessment of what the goals of the Jones critics are. It's not about telling people what to think, it's about standing up for what keeps us together.

What orthodoxy is this small group trying to impose (on all the good meaning activists)?

What "small group"?

What "junk science" ?

Are you aware of the rather extreme conflation you are employing and, if so, why are you employing it?

Why are you interjecting anti-semitism into this discussion?

Why do you attempt to link "friendly fences" with anti-semitism?

How does trampling all over someone's right to pursue their own lines of research "keep[s] us together"?

Now a few comments (and please pause to refresh your understanding of epistemology now, thank you).

1) I don't know absolutely that some sort of DEW was not used at the WTC, but I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that indicates its use as part of the demolitions.

2) Dr. Jones is pursuing two lines of research (or at least that's what we're now discussing), he has not yet stated any conclusions based on his research. Thus, there is nothing about his work to date that even remotely resembles the claims that some have made about DEW use at the WTC. You are comparing apples to fairies here.

3) Yes, I totally condemn the Active Resistance systems now in service in North America. I don't think the royal "we" should condemn anything, ever, however. That leads down a road I have no interest in. Everyone is free to support or condemn anything or anyone as they choose, that is the nature of being a free moral agent.

4) No one, and certainly not me, is telling you to do anything. In fact, I'm trying to defend Dr. Jones right to do what he chooses to do, even when I may not agree with some of his actions. [ Kind of odd that no one has asked me my opinion on all of this, eh?]

5) I find it rather sad that some alleged critical thinkers are jumping to such massive conclusions (and we're talking about World Record Triple Jumps here). Sad, but unfortunately, not surprising.

6) People line up behind ideas they believe in, sometimes they are "good" ideas and sometimes they aren't.

7) This is allegedly a truth movement, so those in it should be seeking the truth, whether it fits some person's definition of "good" or not.

8) From a public relations standpoint of course Dr. Jones research into induced earthquakes and overunity devices is problematical for the truth movement (that is PR 101, agreed?) But he is free to make different choices than you or I might make, yes?

9) I have to wonder exactly what all this hand-wringing and scolding is about, though. This is all about credibility, yes? Well, for anyone who understands junior high science it won't matter that one of the nine authors of the first peer-reviewed paper on the nanothermite found in the WTC dust also does research in some other exotic areas. As for credibility with the msm, the day 9/11 truth gets treated seriously and honestly in the msm is the day all of our work to get a new investigation will be done. As for the very few people who could actually understand and critique the nanothermite paper, those inclined to do so will read it and others will look at the affiliations of the authors and dismiss the paper out of hand (a chemist did this to me earlier this month in Seattle) and thus not ever get near the fact that one of the authors is doing some other (rather exotic, in some people's opinion) research. I think the only people who will make much of this belong to the Jonathan Kay school of critical thinking. Are we really worried about them at this point?

Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you do as an activist offline. Do you have any idea what I do offline as an activist?

The truth shall set us free and everyone has their own path to the truth, some paths are longer than others.

Love is the only way forward and love means letting people follow their own path, even when you disagree with said path.

Don't tell me I need to brush up on epistemology. I am a professional published epistemologist. My advisor is one of, perhaps THE, best epistemologists in the world right now. Epistemology is what I do for a living.

You don't know jack about epistemology. I study under one of the best epistemologists in the world, meanwhile you are trying to call me a liar. I take that real personally. I have absolutely not failed to practice my profession, what the hell are you talking about? You don't have a clue at all what epistemology is but let me give you a quick primer: epistemology is the study of knowledge. We typically analyze knowledge as justified true belief, although there are certain conditions in which that is not sufficient. We call these special cases "Gettier cases". Cases where you are lucky to have a justiified true belief. Knowledge is incompatible with luck.

@Vulich: (When you have an extra moment) I am hoping you could provide a quick reference and/or feedback. After reading this conversation, I'm jumping at the chance to ask this of someone with your area of expertise.

I'm not educated in philosophy/epistemology, but I've been coming to the conclusion in my own mind, for some years, that belief does not exist. Could you point me to any good reading material on the subject or give me your thoughts/example that might help to clarify your understanding of belief (and how it cannot be explained as rational thought instead)? Thanks in advance.

Belief is an attitude that one takes to a proposition. A proposition is kind of like a sentence, one can either affirm its content as true, in which case the proposition is believed, or reject the content as false, in which case the proposition is denied (the negation of the proposition is believed in such a case). That's all I have to say about belief. It's not really anything special. Everyone has beliefs. The real question is how many of our beliefs are knowledge? Anyone can believe anything just by taking a sentence to be true. Knowledge requires more, at a minimum a belief must be justified in addition to being true in order to count as knowledge.

You don't care about credibility because you think that the movement will always be ridiculed by people whether we deserve it or not. Sounds like you don't think we'll ever actually achieve our goal. Well, call me crazy but I'm actually interested in us achieving our goal, so unlike you I am not going to proceed with the jaded attitude that any old truth movement is fine as long as people SAY that they want a new investigation.

Have you even had the courtesy to ask me what my opinion on all this is?

You have to be the absolutely worst epistemologist in history, or you only turn on that discipline when and where it suits you.

You continually misrepresent my position (which you haven't asked for and clearly don't know) on any number of things.

Are you really this ignorant, that angry or are you simply pursuing an agenda?

Btw, have you seen the 9/11: Blueprint For Truth or the Nanothermite dvds?

Those are just two of the dvd's I helped make working with 911tv.org during the last several years working as a full time activist for 9/11 truth (I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours working for 9/11 truth. So, yes, (*^*&%#$%), I do care very much about the cause and the movement, but I'm not willing to trample anyone's rights to get there and I don't throw people under buses because they make mistakes or sometimes do things I don't agree with.)

-I am not one of the worst epistemologists in history, I am actually quite good and well regarded by my colleagues due to my awards, honors, and achievements.

-I haven't misrepresented any of your views about anything. I wonder what you mean.

-I am not ignorant, and yes I am pursuing the agenda of a new investigation into the crimes of September the 11th. Am I angry? Yes.

-I have seen Blueprint for truth, good work.

I don't doubt that you care, but I think you are being extremely counterproductive jumping to the defense of Jones when you really should be helping assist in the criticisms. What he is doing is wrong, i think people are able to see that, or if they don't they will find out soon enough.

If the roles were reversed and I was defending your right to do what you choose to do (including things I disagree with), would you be so quick to trample on that right or waste lots of time hammering at me to join a mob running someone (you, in this case) out of town?

Perhaps you can answer that simple question...

[ Also, perhaps you can summarize what you think my views are on this subject and we will see how close they are to those I actually hold, thanks]

After being called a liar about my profession and my publication record I feel like it is a mistake to even stoop to engage in dialogue with you. A full apology would definitely be in order. But anyways, your failure to trust me, an eminently rational person with an obvious commitment to this cause, says a lot about you, and it is your problem to deal with. I think you are implying in your comment here that Jones is being run off by a mob. That indicates to me that you don't hold many members of this forum in high regard, basically saying that people are operating with a mob mentality. That's not the case, people are responding to a pattern of questionable behavior and strange statements, nothing too complicated here. People are using their minds and thinking for themselves. That's rather the opposite of a mob. I feel like YOU are a part of a mob that is running people like me out of the movement simply because we don't accept the prevailing wisdom that certain people are immune from criticism. I teach college students all of the time, they ask questions when they don't understand something, and they are not satisfied until they get reasonable answers. I agree with that method. To answer your question I would say that nobody is having their rights trampled on. In our society we are free to criticize people for doing things that they have a right to do, that is not removing a right. If I ever engaged in research into UFO's, the illuminati, or any other conspiratorial psuedo scientific idea I would absolutely expect to be alienated from any group of rational inquirers. So again, the thing to say is that I would never research these fringe ideas, and if I did it would be justified to alienate me. 911 has nothing to do with the fringe, the case for a new investigation is a scientific case built on sound understanding of high school physics and standard operating procedures for dealing with terrorist threats and hijackings.

Excuse me, but your confirmation bias is showing and it isn't a pretty sight.

Let's be very clear here. What I am saying is that you or Dr. Jones or anyone else has THE RIGHT to decide what they do, including what they choose to research or not AND that you have THE RIGHT to criticize anything you want to (however ill informed or ignorant the criticism may or may not be).

Thus, it is your right to not research anything you don't want to AND to criticize others any time you want.

It is also Dr. Jones right to pursue any research he chooses and to defend himself when his work is being mischaracterized or incorrectly critiqued.

It is also my right to defend your and his rights, as well as everyone else's rights, here and in public.

Once again, I find it stunning that you have no idea what my actual opinion on the wisdom of publicly announcing research into induced earthquakes and/or "overunity" devices is, incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that you do know and more than a little rude that you don't even have the common courtesy to ask.

I think any neutral reading of the thread would indicate that, if any apology is necessary, it is you who owe me one.

I won't hold my breath.

As for trust, anyone who even has the slightest understanding of Cointelpro knows the only person you can really trust is yourself, and I do.

Unless you wish to begin from a more epistemologically sound starting point, this dialogue is now over.

I said I'm a published epistemologist, you said that you didn't believe me. That means you accused me of lying about being a published epistemologist. Now it looks like you are accusing me of being cointelpro. Well let me just tell you straight up I am not. And can we get a moderator over here? Last time I checked calling someone disinfo is against the rules.

What do you think an epistemologically sound staring point is? Why do you think you know more about epistemology than a professional. Based on your postings it is clear that you don't even know what subject matter epistemology deals with. You are not an expert regarding epistemology, but I am. So for you to challenge me on my understanding of epistemology is totally ironic.

Having looked at this interchange over the last couple of weeks, I just wanted to jump in and second Kevin’s comments. I’ve never posted here before.

Who am I? Just the lowly 9th co-author on the Active Thermitic paper, but also a supporter of 9/11 Truth in any way I can.

It’s unfortunate this issue got caught up so much in attack/defend. Steve knows that I think SnowCrash, Vulich and those supporting them have legitimate concerns. LeftWright feels the same way, as he stated. And I would guess both of you (Vulich and SnowCrash) have put much effort into working for 9/11 Truth, aside from just blogging, and are very concerned that any gains you’ve helped achieve could be undermined, even in a small way. I see you as two very bright, passionate people fully committed to this effort.

But I also think you are getting a little too strident and catastrophically black-and-white over this particular issue. Lay it to rest. Steve has tried to tone this down and back-peddle. He has admitted he should have decoupled his particular current interests from 9/11 forums, and has made conciliatory attempts to start doing this.

He is also an experimentalist; which should be a big part of any sound epistemology. I’m sure Vulich can accept this. I personally have every confidence Steve will be honest about the results regarding his researches into alternative energy sources, at the end of the period he mentioned.

Steve has paid his dues over and over again in the 9/11 movement in the almost 6 years I’ve had association with him. He’s been constantly at it in one way or another during this time regardless of the damage to him personally and to his family. The work he has done in 9/11 research and presentation is a fete accomplis and is stand-alone. Concede him that. I personally think it warrants extreme, on-going respect. Be critical where you think it is warranted, but don’t take it to flint-hard extremes. THAT also undermines this movement, in my view.

I think if you can put this issue on the back burner, you will be pleasantly surprised to find it will shrink in importance. If there is some damage, so be it. Can’t be undone at this point. However, I think it will mostly affect people who would look for fault and ignore the real issues anyway.

Brad, you have taken the trouble to think this through carefully and set it out clearly. I think all who are truly concerned with the progress of 9/11 Truth will agree that Steve's initial paper was invaluable. The courage he displayed in presenting it has helped us all take our various actions. The assertions he made that indicated the thermite reaction was involved have been proved, by the reseach he organized at BYU, to be absolutely correct.

His work in establishing Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and in helping it to evolve into Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, provided a powerful mechanism to enable us to unite in our efforts and feel less lonely with our unpopular views. Then there was the creation of The Journal of 9/11 Studies, the vehicle which enabled so many of us to publish, in a respectable manner, material that would not be accepted elsewhere.

Against these remarkable contributions the current controversy seems trivial. Let us wish him all the best in his new interests.

Steve is a very unique person who has greatly benefited the scientific understanding of the 9/11 attack. 99.9% of the world doesn't even know that yet, but in time, they will. I expect he will continue to contribute to exposing unseen evidence, or refuting false claims, in all of his work, where ever he takes it.

We do have to be mindful how the '911 truth researchers' are seen by the wider community. So far, those of us who have spoken up have been derided and/or smeared. I have a lot of contact with journalists/media people and university academics. I try at times to encourage them to look at alternative research. But it's not always easy to separate solid 911 research (that people can believe in) from 911 Nonsense (that they find so easy to ridicule). Once put off, they tend to turn away for good.

It seems, as you say, that Prof Jones sees the point of 'decoupling' his other non-911 related work from the work that the rest of us here are focusing on. This would be helpful, in my opinion. I say this as someone who first read Prof Jones paper "Why Indeed did the Towers Fall" a few years back and have followed him with respect ever since.